movie’s narrative. Such appropriateness in
acting is also called transparency, meaning
that the character is so clearly recognizable—
in speech, movement, and gesture—for what
he or she is supposed to be that the actor
becomes, in a sense, invisible. Most actors
agree that the more successfully they create
characters, the more we will see those char-
acters and not them.
>Inherent thoughtfulness or emotionality. Does
the actor convey the character’s thought
process or feelings behind the character’s
actions or reactions? In addition to a credible
appearance, does the character have a credi-
ble inner life?
An actor can find the motivations behind
a character’s actions and reactions at any
time before or during a movie’s production.
They may come to light in the script (as well
as in any source on which it is based, such as
a novel or play), in discussions with the direc-
tor or with other cast members, and
in spontaneous elements of inspiration and
improvisation that the actor discovers while
the camera is rolling. No matter which of
these aspects or combinations of them
delineate the character’s motivation, we
expect to see the actor reflect them within
the character’s consciousness or as part
of the illusion-making process by which
the character appears. Another way of
saying this is that characters must appear
to be vulnerable to forces in the narrative—
capable of thinking about them and, if
necessary, changing their mind or feelings
about them.
>Expressive coherence. Has the actor used these
first two qualities (appropriateness and
inherent thoughtfulness/emotionality) to
create a characterization that holds together?
Whatever behavior an actor uses to
convey character, it must be intrinsic, not
extraneous to the character, “maintaining
not only a coherence of manner, but also a fit
between setting, costume, and behavior.”^47When an actor achieves such a fit, he or she is
playing in character. Maintaining expressive
coherence enables the actor to create a very
complex characterization and performance, to
express thoughts and reveal emotions of a
recognizable individual without veering off
into mere quirks or distracting details.
>Wholeness and unity. In spite of the challenges
inherent in most film productions, has the
actor maintained the illusion of a seamless
character, even if that character is purposely
riddled with contradictions?
Whereas expressive coherence relies on
the logic inherent in an actor’s performance,
wholeness and unity are achieved through
the actor’s ability to achieve aesthetic consis-
tency while working with the director, crew,
and other cast members; enduring multiple
takes; and projecting toward the camera
rather than to an audience. However, whole-
ness and unity need not mean uniformity.
The point is this: as audience members we
want to feel we’re in good hands; when we’re
confused or asked to make sense of seem-
ingly incoherent elements, we want to know
that the apparent incoherence happened
intentionally, for an aesthetic reason, as part
of the filmmakers’ overall vision. For exam-
ple, if a given character suddenly breaks
down or reveals himself to be pretending to
be somebody he isn’t, the actor must suffi-
ciently prepare for this change in the
preceding scenes, however he chooses, so
that we can accept it.To begin applying these criteria, let’s examine
the work of two very distinctive, successful actors:
Barbara Stanwyck as Stella Dallas in King Vidor’s
Stella Dallas(1937) and Michelle Williams in Derek
Cianfrance’s Blue Valentine(2010). In these roles,
both actors play strong, assertive women and bring
a significant amount of physicality to their portray-
als. However, in looking at these two movies and
analyzing them, we must remember that they are
separated by a wide chronological and cultural gap
and take into consideration how those elements
influence the narrative and acting.330 CHAPTER 7ACTING
(^47) Naremore, Acting in the Cinema, p. 69.